Children Shooting at Marines - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-02-2003, 06:37 AM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 07:41 PM
I said, "very little response", I did not say "no response". Yes, you and hiphop, and I put forward ideas as well. Just with the large numbers so critical of US policy, there is definitely what I would call a lack of response.

I would go with the bombing. If you are going to fight a war, you have to make tough decisions, right or wrong. This bombing has been the most precise in history, and the low death totals on both sides are a credit to this tactic.

Peace
__________________

Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-02-2003, 01:40 PM   #42
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 01:41 AM
Dreadsox:

When i asked the pro war fraction what to do when the war is won the response was even less

But you're right, most of the anti war protestors are just "against it" without thinking too much about alternatives

And yes - i'm impressed that they still use the "precicion bombs" (which give a 3/4 chance of hitting what you want to hit) because these bombs are approx 100x more expensive than the dumb ones. Let's hope the US continues it like that

Iraq is using a ugly tactic trying to force the allied troops to cause more colateral damage
But it seems to me the logic response (also the most inhumane) if you want to defend your country against such a superpower

War is such a ugly thing

Klaus
__________________

Klaus is offline  
Old 04-02-2003, 02:38 PM   #43
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 03:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

I urge you to start your own thread on the topic of what other options there are. I think you will be surprised that many of us, on both sides, have many other ideas of what could have been done. Just start it off with what you would have done if sanctions and war are not the options. I am sincerely curious.
Peace
I dont feel like starting another thread.
U need alternatives?

If it is about disarmament
1. Continuation of inspections and continuation of military pressure.
Thanks to US pressure Iraq started cooperating more and more actively. Blix said inspectors would need months not years to complete their job...
Sorry, I forgot it's not about disarmament. Besides, there were "wrong inspectors". The goal is regime change. The goal is to remove the monster who tortured and killed his own people for decades. The goal is ELEVATION for the Iraqi people. Ok.

If it is to remove Saddam
2. Whenhiphop... gave u one alternative of CIA and Mossad. I don't believe that much in effectiveness of CIA (look at Fidel Castro). I will give u another, legal one.
Namely, UNSC resolution authorising use of force against Iraq and consequently a BROAD coalition of countries conducting legal operation on Iraq. Coalition like in 1991. I guess in such case Saddam would not have stood the pressure of the UNITED international community. He would have resigned/escaped before the operation. If not, the war could start but I guess Iraqis would have been far less eager to fight against UNITED international coalition acting on legal grounds than against "US-UK infidels and agressors". The operation would have been shorter despite your assuredness that you dont need others, u r the best, u know it all and can do it all.
Of course, it would not be easy to get consent of many countries to attack Iraq, especially when one lacks convincing reasoning explaining why the war is the ONLY method and why it is so indispensable to start it NOW. But isn't it the job of your diplomats?

The problem does not lie in alternatives. The problem is that from the very beginning the US was not interested in peaceful alternatives but wanted this war and wanted to do it alone. Do it alone. We will not support you.
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 04-02-2003, 09:11 PM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS

If it is about disarmament
1. Continuation of inspections and continuation of military pressure.
Thanks to US pressure Iraq started cooperating more and more actively. Blix said inspectors would need months not years to complete their job...
I think we agree on something. It was the pressure that got thinks "working". You and I probably disagree on the definition of "working" in this case, but I will submit theat they were becoming productive. I still feel, as I have said in other posts, it was wrong for the security council to not assist in the buildup. They needed to take more of a role in building up the pressure with a coalition. Then I might believe, that they intended to do something if the inspections were not working.

Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS

2. Whenhiphop... gave u one alternative of CIA and Mossad. I don't believe that much in effectiveness of CIA (look at Fidel Castro). I will give u another, legal one.
I have done enough reading on Saddam to believe that this one is highly impossible. Although I did read recently that the CIA was looking into poisoning his Viagra. They knew where he was getting his little blue pill (Diamond told me they were blue).

They make-up of the security system he put in place around himself, the fact that he would kill a hundred people if he thought it would eliminate one person that threatened him, and the fact that there are tribal loyalties within his security forces,


Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS

Namely, UNSC resolution authorising use of force against Iraq and consequently a BROAD coalition of countries conducting legal operation on Iraq. Coalition like in 1991. I guess in such case Saddam would not have stood the pressure of the UNITED international community. He would have resigned/escaped before the operation. If not, the war could start but I guess Iraqis would have been far less eager to fight against UNITED international coalition acting on legal grounds than against "US-UK infidels and agressors". The operation would have been shorter despite your assuredness that you dont need others, u r the best, u know it all and can do it all.
Of course, it would not be easy to get consent of many countries to attack Iraq, especially when one lacks convincing reasoning explaining why the war is the ONLY method and why it is so indispensable to start it NOW. But isn't it the job of your diplomats?
I think the biggest reason this is going to cause terrorism is the failure of Collin Powell and this President to form a broad coalition. While I support the war based on my own research and reading, I am 100% disappointed, and angry at the failure of this administration in this area. It does not change my belief that this was the right course of action.



Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS

The problem does not lie in alternatives. The problem is that from the very beginning the US was not interested in peaceful alternatives but wanted this war and wanted to do it alone. Do it alone. We will not support you.

The US has been trying to work through the UN to stregnthen sanctions. The US has approached the Middle Eastern governments and tried to plug the illegal trade that Iraq was participating in. At this point we are not in agreement. In my opinion, this president lost patience with the process.

Excellent post Alex, I enjoyed reading and thinking about it.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-03-2003, 04:49 AM   #45
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 01:41 AM
Dreadsox:

If the US wanted to strengthen the UN sanctions it's a bad idea to give the UN a ultimatum at the beginning and to ignore the UN if it dosn't agree to the US (miss)interpretation of UN laws

Another hint that the US wants to get rid of the UN:

Colin Powel starts diplomatic contacts with the Nato to get the Nato the job done what is UN business, the reconstruction of Iraq.

Why? I can only speculate at this point but i guess the Nato is easier controlable for the US than the UN is.

Klaus
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-03-2003, 06:53 AM   #46
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Dreadsox:

If the US wanted to strengthen the UN sanctions it's a bad idea to give the UN a ultimatum at the beginning and to ignore the UN if it dosn't agree to the US (miss)interpretation of UN laws
I do believe, that you will find that from the time Bush came into office attempts were made to stregnthen sanctions. I also bet you will find that the countries that blocked these attempts are the same countries that are opposed to the war.

Again, we can both site sources of "INTERPRETATION" of the UN Laws. However, I think the 12 years of the Security Council ignoring the violations, as well as the fact that three of the permanent members are directly responsible for their erosion and "reinterpretation" of the prior resolutions. Research it, which of the nations on the security council was the first nation in the world to fly directly into Bagdahd after the Gulf War? This was a clear violation/reinterpretation of a prior resolution.

The Security Council has allowed violations of it's "LAWS" for 12 years.


Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus

Another hint that the US wants to get rid of the UN:

Colin Powel starts diplomatic contacts with the Nato to get the Nato the job done what is UN business, the reconstruction of Iraq.

Why? I can only speculate at this point but i guess the Nato is easier controlable for the US than the UN is.

Klaus
I am sorry, but I do seem to recall that France said they would again VETO any efforts for reconstruction because it would legitimize the war. How can we work through the UN if FRANCE, one nation, once again stands in the way of the security council?

Peace

Matt
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-03-2003, 08:52 AM   #47
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 01:41 AM
Dreadsox:

hiphop's posting convinced me that it's a wrong interpretation of the US side:

Argumentation was something like:

"as long as the un security council members say no to the war (and they said that while they created that resulution and after that) it would be a tragic missinterpretation that "serious consequences" could have ment "war".

At least from my knowledge about laws you have to search for the intention of the law (or resolution in this case) if you are unsure about the words.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I am sorry, but I do seem to recall that France said they would again VETO any efforts for reconstruction because it would legitimize the war. How can we work through the UN if FRANCE, one nation, once again stands in the way of the security council?
I haven't heared of that one, i heared in an interview that the French would help to rebuild Iraq if it's done under complete UN- (and not under US-) control.

If that Veto thing is true that would let me see things different.

And to the US "help" of enforcing laws.
What would you think if a private group inside the US would start to enforce US laws and decide how to enforce them?
Would you think that's legal?

Klaus
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-03-2003, 01:21 PM   #48
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 01:41 AM
Dreadsox:

here a press relase to the topic above:

Quote:
[b]US ambassador says no need for UN General Assembly session on Iraq[b]
from AFP www.afp.com

UNITED NATIONS, April 2 (AFP) - US ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte said Wednesday he saw no need for a UN General Assembly session on Iraq.

"We do not think that it is either necessary or desirable," he told journalists.

"We noticed some talks among delegations, perhaps Arab delegations, and from the non-aligned organization. We see no reason, no reason whatsoever, to transport this issue to the General Assembly," Negroponte said.

The five permanent members of the Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- cannot exercise their veto right on the General Assembly, which comprises all 191 UN members.

Negroponte said there would be ample opportunity for the Council to discuss Iraq in April. Speaking after a closed-door agenda-setting meeting of the Council, he said humanitarian aid would be the main issue.

He declined to discuss questions on post-war reconstruction.

"The questions that really are before us have to do more with the ongoing conflict and the humanitarian situation," he said.

be/pfm/gs AFP 022100 GMT 04 03

Copyright (c) 2003 Agence France-Presse
I'm not sure about that one, but it seems to me that there is a way without the security council (if they are afraid of vetos) by doing a General Assembly session? But the US don't see a need to do this?
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-03-2003, 07:19 PM   #49
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 07:41 PM
I would love to see it. The rules in the security council need to be revamped. I would love to see the veto taken away from the five countries that hold the power. I think it stops them from creating clear resolutions that are not ambiguous. I also think it would help resolve the Palestinian problem.

I would love to see the general assembly get involved. I am sure Bush does not want it.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-04-2003, 04:00 AM   #50
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 01:41 AM
Dreadsox:

i agree with you at this point.
__________________

Klaus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×